Toddrick Brown v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 263rd District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued October 14, 2010 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-01081-CR TODDRICK BROWN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 263rd Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1204628 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Toddrick Brown, entered a plea of guilty for the felony offense of burglary of a habitation, see TEX. PENAL CODE. ANN. ยง 30.02 (Vernon 2003), and the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on five years community supervision and a $400 fine. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt based on several alleged violations of the conditions of appellant s community supervision. The trial court found the allegations of the State s motion to be true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed appellant s punishment at five years confinement and a $400 fine. In appellant s sole point of error, appellant contends that the court s assessment of five years confinement violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the term is disproportionate to the crime committed by appellant. We affirm. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT Appellant argues that his punishment was so disproportionate to his crimes that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. To preserve for appellate review a complaint that a sentence is grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment, a defendant must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 119 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Here, there is no record that after the trial court announced its sentence at the punishment stage, appellant made an objection to the trial court about the punishment assessed or that he asserted his claim under the Eighth Amendment. In addition, appellant did not move for a new trial. Accordingly, we hold that appellant has waived his cruel-and-unusual2 punishment complaint. See Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (concluding that defendant did not preserve cruel and unusual punishment complaint for appellate review because he failed to object to sentence). Accordingly, we overrule appellant s sole point of error. CONCLUSION We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Sherry Radack Chief Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Mirabal.1 Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 1 The Honorable Margaret Garner Mirabal, Senior Justice, Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, participating by assignment. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
